Jump to content

Joe Biden and the 25th Amendment


Foxx
 Share

Recommended Posts

Crap Throwing Clavin
17 minutes ago, Ann said:

And then we get Kamala. Oh goodie.

 

And people think I'm somehow partisan.

 

This is why I'm not.  They're idiots on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, devnull said:

The plan all along has been for Biden to resign after 24-30 months


Not sure Dr Jill is on board with that plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Ann said:

And then we get Kamala. Oh goodie.

She might be a somewhat better option than President Pelosi...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2022 at 5:12 PM, Ann said:

And then we get Kamala. Oh goodie.

 

On 2/13/2022 at 5:59 PM, Foxx said:

She might be a somewhat better option than President Pelosi...

 

This might be the best thing to happen though, hear me out....

 

People tend to ignore Section 2 of the 25th which reads:

Quote

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

 

Have you guessed where I'm going with this yet?

If Kamala becomes POTUS, she is no longer VP, and no longer the tie breaking vote in the Senate right? And how does she get to chose a successor to the VP spot, but would have to be approved then by a 50 - 50 Senate where she is no longer the tiebreaking vote. 

 

So then if, and that that is a HUGE IF, McConnell can keep the Republicans together there would be no VP and no tie breaker until the next election this fall when if, and this is a smaller if, the Republicans regain control of both Chambers

 

The only drawback to all of that is that if, and of course no one wants regardless, something were to happen to Kamala as VP, Pelosi is the next in line, at least until the election..... I think a gamble worth taking though.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fansince88
On 2/13/2022 at 5:30 PM, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

And people think I'm somehow partisan.

 

This is why I'm not.  They're idiots on both sides.

100% accurate! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billsandhorns
2 hours ago, Cinga said:

 

 

This might be the best thing to happen though, hear me out....

 

People tend to ignore Section 2 of the 25th which reads:

 

Have you guessed where I'm going with this yet?

If Kamala becomes POTUS, she is no longer VP, and no longer the tie breaking vote in the Senate right? And how does she get to chose a successor to the VP spot, but would have to be approved then by a 50 - 50 Senate where she is no longer the tiebreaking vote. 

 

So then if, and that that is a HUGE IF, McConnell can keep the Republicans together there would be no VP and no tie breaker until the next election this fall when if, and this is a smaller if, the Republicans regain control of both Chambers

 

The only drawback to all of that is that if, and of course no one wants regardless, something were to happen to Kamala as VP, Pelosi is the next in line, at least until the election..... I think a gamble worth taking though.... 

One minor issue. It's BOTH houses, not just the Senate. Best case in this scenario is to take majority back in both houses. But then they probably try and play the racist/sexist cards because they are denying the first black woman knobgobbler her V.P. choice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Billsandhorns said:

One minor issue. It's BOTH houses, not just the Senate. Best case in this scenario is to take majority back in both houses. But then they probably try and play the racist/sexist cards because they are denying the first black woman knobgobbler her V.P. choice

 

Oh I know it's both chambers, that is why I said if the Republicans regain control of both. But this could be a standoff with no VP to cast the deciding vote if the Senate stood strong. I think even more than the racist/sexist card might be that Pelosi claims it is here right as 3rd in line to then cast the deciding Senate vote. While it would lose in court, that doesn't mean they might not try it and like many other things going on now, how do you possibly roll something like that back again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crap Throwing Clavin
4 hours ago, Cinga said:

 

Oh I know it's both chambers, that is why I said if the Republicans regain control of both. But this could be a standoff with no VP to cast the deciding vote if the Senate stood strong. I think even more than the racist/sexist card might be that Pelosi claims it is here right as 3rd in line to then cast the deciding Senate vote. While it would lose in court, that doesn't mean they might not try it and like many other things going on now, how do you possibly roll something like that back again?

 

There's also the possibility, given how many people think the Presidential order of succession is an order of promotion, that Democrats simply "promote" Pelosi to President without a nomination and vote.

 

Likely?  No.  But enough people believe that's how things should work, that I wouldn't completely discount it.

  • Wow 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

There's also the possibility, given how many people think the Presidential order of succession is an order of promotion, that Democrats simply "promote" Pelosi to President without a nomination and vote.

 

Likely?  No.  But enough people believe that's how things should work, that I wouldn't completely discount it.

 

But it would be so much more fun to see Hillary as Kamala VP! Bet Vegas would have an over/under on how long before an Arkansination were attempted

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, snafu said:

I hate this 25th Amendment talk.

One step closer to Banana-land.

 

 

No doubt. That said, do you think him capable of carrying out duties of the President?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Foxx said:

No doubt. That said, do you think him capable of carrying out duties of the President?

 

I don't know. I'm not going to conclude things from afar.  I do know that they never needed to trot him out in front of a microphone every day.  We don't need to see ANY President every day.  Why do we do that?  So we can pick him apart? It certainly isn't so that we can feel better about our lives.  Again, this goes for D Presidents and for R Presidents.  I'm not saying that he should hide in a darkened room, but people complain when there's a "lid" on his day.  Did people complain when Trump or Obama or GW Bush had a day without appearing in public and making remarks?  Public figures are always better off making fewer remarks.

 

For domestic policy, does his capacity make much of a difference? Provided that the behind-the-scenes decisionmakers are aligned with Biden's policies, I'd say it doesn't matter in that regard.  He's been coherent enough for me to see that he's governed far to the left of what he ran on.

 

For foreign policy issues, yes it matters very much. But even a fully coherent Biden is a disaster with foreign policy.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crap Throwing Clavin
1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

I don't know. I'm not going to conclude things from afar.  I do know that they never needed to trot him out in front of a microphone every day.  We don't need to see ANY President every day.  Why do we do that? 

 

Cult of celebrity.  People actually center their self-identity around who's in political office (see also: Hillary, RBG).  

 

I find it particularly worrisome when special interest groups center their identity around politicians.  Trans people for example.  If you need a specific person in the White House to feel validated as trans, you've got serious issues.  Just...go be trans.  Be happy with yourself, don't look to the electorate for validation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

Cult of celebrity.  People actually center their self-identity around who's in political office (see also: Hillary, RBG).  

 

I find it particularly worrisome when special interest groups center their identity around politicians.  Trans people for example.  If you need a specific person in the White House to feel validated as trans, you've got serious issues.  Just...go be trans.  Be happy with yourself, don't look to the electorate for validation.

 

How can a politician pander to someone if they're not identifiable in a group?  That's why we have "LBGT Month" instead of "October".  I'll start to get nervous when politicians actually stop grouping citizens into policy consumers.  That might mean we're at full commie level.  Or at least single party stranglehold.

 

Really LBGT people with brains don't want a "month".  They want "October" and they want the person in the WH to simply not be overtly hostile. 

 

Your cult of celebrity explanation is part of it.  It explains the supporters.  It doesn't explain the opposition -- who want the daily appearance as some sort of pinata exercise.

 

 

 

Edited by snafu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

No doubt. That said, do you think him capable of carrying out duties of the President?

 

Absolutely not.

 

But that was true in 1988.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Guidelines